Re: [tips_and_tricks] Return of property tax bills.

Article 1 section 10 of the Constitution says in it, No State shall make any Thing but gold or silver coin a tender in payment of debt….. Feds might use

Message 1 of 26
, Sep 3, 2010

0 Attachment

Article 1 section 10 of the Constitution says in it, " No State shall make any Thing but gold or silver coin a tender in payment of debt….."
Feds might use and take paper, but states can only ask for gold or silver…..if they are not imposters anyway…..

Jake

I am quite sure that a lot of people in New York are being assessed and made to pay a property tax well outside the authority of the state to legislate.

Message 2 of 26
, Sep 3, 2010

0 Attachment

> I am quite sure that a lot of people in New York are being assessed and made to pay a property tax well outside the authority of the state to legislate.

Well, that falls into the, "If you want somebody to bitch at, look in the mirror" category. And it certainly reminds me of the North Carolina "Intangibles Tax" which was declared unconsitutional by a unanimous U.S. supreme court in 1996 (Fulton Corp. v. Faulkner, 516 U.S. 325), but people had been paying it for like 85 years before someone finally said wait a darn minute, that tax is unconsitutional!

I don't remember all the details, but I do remember these points - some attorneys told their clients when you pay the intangibles tax, write "Paid Under Protest" or the like on the memo line of your check, or otherwise make a notation to that effect when making the payment. The N.C. court of appeals ruled the tax unconstitutional, but the State supreme court reversed & then the case went up to the U.S. supreme court. Figuring the State would lose, the N.C. Legislature repealed the tax before the case was heard, but the supreme court said that doesn't matter because the tax was unconstitutional from day one (Ref. Norton v. Shelby Co., 118 U.S. 425 (1886)). Now here's the kicker - ONLY those people who objected to the tax in writing when they paid it got a refund, and ONLY for those years that they objected.

At 10-0903 12:06 pm, you wrote:>For the life of me I can't understand why anyone would start a fight >they can't possibly win, especially in the area> of State property tax, which is not new by any stretch of the imagination.

I am quite sure that a lot of people in New York are being assessed and made to pay a property tax well outside the authority of the state to legislate. There seems to have been a lot of reluctance on the part of early colonists to trust taxing authorities, particularly when it came to direct taxation on the land. Their fears appear to have been well founded. I do realize that winning and validity are separate issue, entirely -- I certainly haven't been able to get far in this respect.

Legalbear

From: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com [mailto:tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Jake For the life of me I can t understand why anyone would start

"For the life of me I can't understand why anyone would start a fight they can't possibly win..."

I shouldn't have to remind someone who knows enough about the Scriptures to explain to me that the addition of an 'h' on the end of a Hebrew name makes it feminine, that, the ten spies who said in essence, We can't possibly win the fight, died in a plague before Jahuwah shortly after they said this. Out of the twelve spies, only Joshua and Caleb who said, We're well able to take the land, survived that plague and lived to see the promised land. The winning of any fight starts with this 'I can'� attitude. Those who think 'they can't'� best not go. The difference between Joshua and Caleb and the other ten spies; Joshua and Caleb 'wholly followed' Jahuwah. I remind you that out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks (or in this case, writes). I almost ended with a smiley, but can't. This is a very serious matter. Bear

Article 1 section 10 of the Constitution says in it, No State shall make any Thing but gold or silver coin a tender in payment of debt…..

Message 4 of 26
, Sep 3, 2010

0 Attachment

> Article 1 section 10 of the Constitution says in it, " No State shall make any Thing but gold or silver coin a tender in payment of debt….."
> Feds might use and take paper, but states can only ask for gold or silver…..

I have never seen anybody run with that argument, but I'd like to - friend of mine brought it up years ago, but never pursued it. And I haven't researched the issue to see what case law there is regarding it - you can bet there is some & probably a lot - surely somebody thought of that argument long ago - like well over 100 years ago.

~ ~ ~

robertparker99@gmail.com

Maybe this isn t exactly relevant, but the idea that the same property (no matter what that property is) means that you can never actually own it as you are

Message 5 of 26
, Sep 3, 2010

0 Attachment

Maybe this isn't exactly relevant, but the idea that the same property (no matter what that property is) means that you can never actually own it as you are merely renting from the government. Additionally, just because something like property taxes have been around for awhile is meaningless.
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

Jake

Additionally, just because something like property taxes have been around for awhile is meaningless. It most assuredly is not. Who elected the

Message 6 of 26
, Sep 3, 2010

0 Attachment

> Additionally, just because something like property taxes have been around for awhile is meaningless.

It most assuredly is not. Who elected the legislatures which passed the laws establishing property taxes? And who has elected them ever since? If the voting public doesn't want the property tax, why haven't they done something about it - for 100 or more years?

I'll answer the last question - because they prefer the "benefits" the taxes (supposedly) pay for. As long as the voters believe (whether it's true or not) that their property tax $$$ go to pay for such things as the police dept., the fire dept., roads, schools, etc., they'll say we don't have a problem paying those taxes. Oh, they'll gripe over the amount if it goes up, but they'd rather have those things provided by gov't. that they can't
provide for themselves individually.

Maybe this isn't exactly relevant, but the idea that the same property (no matter what that property is) means that you can never actually own it as you are merely renting from the government. Additionally, just because something like property taxes have been around for awhile is meaningless.
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

Jon Rourke

Colorado obeys the US Constitution in so far as Colorado law goes: Colorado Revised Statutes: 11-61-101 The *Gold* and *Silver Coin* issued by the government

Message 7 of 26
, Sep 3, 2010

0 Attachment

Colorado obeys the US Constitution in so far as Colorado law goes:
Colorado Revised Statutes:
11-61-101 The *Gold* and *Silver Coin* issued by the government of the
United States _/shall/ _be a legal tender for the payment of all debts
contracted on or after April 5, 1893, between the citizens of this
state. The same _/shall/_ be received in payment of all debts due to the
citizens of this state and in satisfaction of all taxes levied by the
authority of the laws of this state.

*ANNOTATION*
*Federal reserve notes are legal tender for all debts.* State statute on
legal tender cannot prohibit acceptance of federal reserve notes because
Congress has the power to declare what is legal tender for all debts and
it has done so by delegation to the federal reserve system. Walton v.
Keim, 694 P.2d 1287 (Colo. App. 1984).

The problem I have with this is where did the Congress get the power to
delegate any of its' powers to any private entity?

On 9/3/2010 1:40 PM, stonekutteral wrote:
> Article 1 section 10 of the Constitution says in it, " No State shall make any Thing but gold or silver coin a tender in payment of debt….."
> Feds might use and take paper, but states can only ask for gold or silver…..if they are not imposters anyway…..
>
>
>

Jake

The problem I have with this is where did the Congress get the power to delegate any of its powers to any private entity? I don t believe the

Message 8 of 26
, Sep 3, 2010

0 Attachment

> The problem I have with this is where did the Congress get the power to delegate any of its' powers to any private entity?

I don't believe the Constitution grants any such authority & you'd have to read the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 as well as the Congressional Record from the time period to see how CONgress thought they had the authority, but from a practical / realistic / pragmatic standpoint, what does it matter? Do you think that anyone is going to undo 97 years of that system?

And what would happen if CONgress did un-create the Fed (which they could do) & take back the Constitutional authority "to coin money and regulate the value thereof"? The whole world economy would crash in about 15 minutes, that's what. Why? Real simple - nearly every country in the world (including China) has
adopted the same type "fiat money, fractional reserve banking" system we use & there's not enough gold & silver in the whole world to cover even a fraction of all the currency & debt in circulation.

Although I can't predict when & neither can anyone else, I'm sure the whole house of cards will come crashing down sooner or later - probably sooner - but it's mathematically impossible to return to a system where every dollar in circulation, in bank accounts, etc. is 100% backed by real gold & silver. Heck, when FDR took office for the 1st time, there was only 40 cents on the dollar of gold to cover all the notes in circulation & gold was $26.33 / oz. in 1933 - it closed @ $1246.75 today. Does that mean gold is that much more valuable today? No - it means the dollar is that much less valuable.

We can talk about how things ought to be 'till we're blue in the face but that doesn't change reality
& the reality is if we want to survive today, we have to deal with how things are, not how we would like them to be. CONgress hasn't acted under the Constitutional model for 150 years & they sure aren't going to start after the Labor Day weekend is over . . .

Colorado obeys the US Constitution in so far as Colorado law goes:Colorado Revised Statutes:11-61-101 The *Gold* and *Silver Coin* issued by the government of the United States _/shall/ _be a legal tender for the payment of all debts contracted
on or after April 5, 1893, between the citizens of this state. The same _/shall/_ be received in payment of all debts due to the citizens of this state and in satisfaction of all taxes levied by the authority of the laws of this state.

*ANNOTATION**Federal reserve notes are legal tender for all debts.* State statute on legal tender cannot prohibit acceptance of federal reserve notes because Congress has the power to declare what is legal tender for all debts and it has done so by delegation to the federal reserve system. Walton v. Keim, 694 P.2d 1287 (Colo. App. 1984).

The problem I have with this is where did the Congress get the power to delegate any of its' powers to any private entity?

4) The "Federal Reserve Act" was actually Private Law! Learn the Difference or Suffer the Consequences

The distinction between public and private acts is not always sharply
defined when published statutes are printed in their final form: Case v. Kelly, 133 U.S. 21 (1890). Statutes creating corporations are private acts: 20 Am.Jur. 35, p. 60. In this connection, the Federal Reserve Act is private law. Federal Reserve banks derive their existence and corporate power from the Federal Reserve Act: Armano v. Federal Reserve Bank, 468 F.Supp. 674 (1979).

"A private law is one which is confined to particular individuals,
associations, or corporations": 50 Am.Jur. 12, p.28. In the instant case the revenue code pertains to taxpayers. A private law can be enforced by a court of competent jurisdiction when statutes for its enforcement are enacted: 20 Am.Jur. 33, pgs. 58, 59."

A private act may be published as a public law when the general
public is afforded the opportunity of participating in the operation of the private law. The Federal Reserve Act, Internal Revenue Code, and the Social Security Act are ALL prime examples of private law/s which do not exclude the voluntary participation of the general public. Had either of these Acts been written as substantive public law, All of same would be repugnant to the U.S. Constitution.

Furthermore Re:

"And what would happen if CONgress did un-create the Fed (which they could do) & take back the Constitutional authority "to coin money and regulate the value thereof"? The whole world economy would crash in about 15 minutes, that's what. Why? Real simple - nearly every country in the world (including China) has adopted the same type "fiat money, fractional reserve banking" system we use & there's not enough gold & silver in the whole world to cover even a fraction of all the currency & debt in circulation."

and

" it means the dollar is that much less valuable."

Such presumptions are in Error.

First, it is quite naïve to refer to Federal Reserve currency/ fiat paper even remotely as "dollars".

Second, such statement also completely ignores the fact that such fiat currency is already presently debased/discounted/ arbitraged in the Market to reflect its actual "dollar" worth via higher prices (i.e. "inflation")

Whether One simply takes the Official Dollar / Gold Fix Price of $42.22 and divide same by the "Market" / arbitraged price of the fiat currency in Gold i.e. 1247.60 to realize that such fiat IOUs are only worth 3 cents on the "Dollar" or use the Federal Reserve Bank's OWN "Inflation Index Calculator" to discover how they admit that their currency has been debased to 4 cents on the "dollar"

[Go to: http://www.minneapolisfed.org/index.cfm Next under "What is a `dollar' worth" enter "1913" ( Year the Fed was created) then below enter "2010" and click on the "calculate" and it will show "22.19" then simply divide 1 by 22.19 and you get .045]

So for Congress to actually abolish the Fed and return to using the proper Constitutional Money standards, merely means that Prices would be brought back down to reflect True "Monetary / Dollar / $ " Values, rather than the present Fiat "Market" Values which have already arbitraged the debasement of such fiat currency, and such Fiat currency would thus only be exchanged for its actual present "Monetary" value of 3-4 Cents on the "Dollar"! DUH!

Thus the price of gasoline would fall back to approx 20 cents a gallon, Home values and property taxes, and other prices would fall back to values similar to those prior to the Crime of `65 (Coinage Act of 1965) when LBJ and Congress violated the Constitution!

The only actual problem would be for the Banksters, as they could no longer steal One's purchasing power as they currently do with their fiat paper currency, and the vast majority of "taxpayers" (Fed Reserve's "wage slaves") would fall off the Income Tax liability list as their earnings would reflect actual Monetary /$/ "Dollar Value" instead of the Fiat "Market Value", and thus fall below the filing requirements!!!

"Ignorance of Fact excuses; Ignorance of the Law excuses not.
Every man must be taken to be cognizant of the law; otherwise there
is no saying to what extent the excuse of ignorance may not be
carried."
Black's Law Dictionary Sixth Edition Centennial Edition (1981-1991)
page 747

Knowledge will forever govern ignorance: And a people who mean to be
their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power which
knowledge gives.
James Madison, U.S. President and primary Author of the Federalist
Papers. Letter to W.T. Barry, August 4, 1822.

We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.
Benjamin Franklin

Leviticus 19:36; Deuteronomy 25:15-16
I John 4:6

Wisdom is the principal thing; Therefore get wisdom. And in all your
getting, Get understanding. Proverbs 4:7

"vivus spartacus"
All Rights Reserved

It is the common fate of the indolent to see their rights become a
prey to the active. The condition upon which (Our Creator) hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt. John Philpot Curran (1750-1817)

Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have
found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be
imposed upon them, and these will continue till they are resisted
with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are
prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress.
Frederick Douglass, "If There Is No Struggle, There Is No Progress"

... Is brainwashing something one can blame on others who might be trying to do it? Or is being a victim of it one s own fault for having such a lack of

Message 10 of 26
, Sep 5, 2010

0 Attachment

> again the key is educating them and getting released from
> their imposed slavery.

Is brainwashing something one can blame on others who might be trying to
do it? Or is being a victim of it one's own fault for having such a
lack of discernment? I think, since I've been informed that its
existence was known since the Korean war, that "victims" are voluntary.
A friend of mine would say I lack compassion. So I'm always working on
it, but still have problems with absolving everyone from responsibility
for what transpires between their own ears.

> here are 2 court cases-
> "As a rule, a definition which declares what a term "means" . . .
> excludes any meaning that is not stated"
> Colautti v. Franklin, 439 U.S. 379 (1979)
>
> "When a statute includes an explicit definition, we must follow that
> definition, even if it varies from that term's ordinary meaning.
> Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914 (2000)

So, I guess it's pretty clear then that FRNs are not dollars and vice
versa, as someone was looking for a citation to that effect a while ago.
There's two of them.

Of course New York street lingo says otherwise. So what?

Regards,

FF

Frog Farmer

... They must be counting on numbers of others to join in then. ... Oh, you re right about the attitude. But those who cannot do more can slow the enemy down

Message 11 of 26
, Sep 6, 2010

0 Attachment

> "For the life of me I can't understand why anyone would start a fight
> they can't possibly win..."

They must be counting on numbers of others to join in then.

> The winning of any
> fight starts with this 'I can' attitude. Those who think 'they can't'
> best not go.

Oh, you're right about the attitude. But those who cannot do more can
slow the enemy down some, and every little bit helps in my own opinion.
If everyone would just fight their tickets and buy some silver every
week, things might straighten out like dominoes falling. That'll never
happen though. I remember the days when EVERYONE knew silver was money.

> I almost ended with a smiley, but can't. This is a very
> serious matter. Bear

There are so many!!

Aaaaaghghghghgh!

Regards,

FF

P.S. I love you, Bear!

P.P.S. No, I'm not gay.

Jake

... By filing more frivolous lawsuits? Doesn t make sense to me. I read the Complaint & motions filed in the Michigan property tax case & it certainly falls

Message 12 of 26
, Sep 6, 2010

0 Attachment

> "For the life of me I can't understand why anyone would start a fight they can't possibly win..."

> They must be counting on numbers of others to join in then.

By filing more frivolous lawsuits? Doesn't make sense to me. I read the Complaint & motions filed in the Michigan property tax case & it certainly falls into the category of "frivolous".

> The winning of any fight starts with this 'I can' attitude. Those who think 'they can't' best not go.

I agree, but you have to have a valid issue / argument to begin with.

And my favorite quotes from Sun Tzu's "The Art of War" most assuredly apply:

He will win who knows when to fight and when not to fight.

If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.

If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you willalso suffer a defeat.

If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you willalso suffer a defeat.

If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles.

To secure ourselves against defeat lies in our own hands, but the opportunity of defeating the enemy is provided by the enemy himself.

... I was only speaking in general terms and did not have that case in mind when I said it. I ll buy that most cases today are frivolous. ... I have to tell

Message 14 of 26
, Sep 6, 2010

0 Attachment

Jake wrote:

> > "For the life of me I can't understand why anyone would start a
> fight they can't possibly win..."
>
> > They must be counting on numbers of others to join in then.
>
> By filing more frivolous lawsuits? Doesn't make sense to me. I read
> the Complaint & motions filed in the Michigan property tax case & it
> certainly falls into the category of "frivolous".

I was only speaking in general terms and did not have that case in mind
when I said it. I'll buy that most cases today are frivolous.

> > The winning of any fight starts with this 'I can' attitude. Those
> who think 'they can't' best not go.
>
> I agree, but you have to have a valid issue / argument to begin with.

I have to tell you, I have won several cases the wrong way and only
found out I was wrong later on. So I have to say that if you really
want something, don't give up trying to get it. A positive attitude is
a lot more productive of good things than is a negative attitude.

> And my favorite quotes from Sun Tzu's "The Art of War" most assuredly
> apply:
>
> He will win who knows when to fight and when not to fight.

Check!

> If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every
> battle.

Check!

> If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you
> will also suffer a defeat.
>
> If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you
> will also suffer a defeat.

That one was important enough to say twice!

> If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result
> of a hundred battles.

Really... been there; done that! There are lots of battles; lots of
enemy sets. So many enemies; so little time! What's a warrior to do?!

> To secure ourselves against defeat lies in our own hands, but the
> opportunity of defeating the enemy is provided by the enemy himself.

I am watching a house of cards fall, recorded in super high definition
with zoom and all the effects! Two of my favorite info warriors are Max
Keiser and Stacy Herbert! Max is a self-made billionaire, Stacy is his
sidekick, and together they are so productive it is hard to imagine how
they do it, what with all the fun they have while doing it!

If I were King, Max and Stacy would be on my kingdom news hour
broadcast. Here are links to their sites:

But I sure enjoyed seeing CitiMortgage settle out of court with one of my guys (he walked away with a check for $10,000 & the $122,000 mortgage is wiped off the books as if it never existed), a driver's license case against me (I don't have one) get dismissed, IRS problems end, we've got cases in both State & federal courts regarding IRS & State Dept. of Revenue issues & mortgage issues too. So the answer to your question is State & federal
tax agencies & mortgage companies.

Beat 'em @ their own game! I won't guarantee you can do it every time & you darn sure won't if you don't learn their procedural rules, but with enough "due diligence" it is possible. We've won far more cases than we've lost & my goal is to keep things like tax issues in administrative procedure so you never see the inside of a courtroom - that's worked over 90% of the time. Use their own documents & procedures against them. But of course you have to know how . . .

~ ~ ~

Frog Farmer

... Good for you! It s a dirty job, but somebody has to do it! I won the drivers license case three times, three different ways. It was my educational

Message 16 of 26
, Sep 8, 2010

0 Attachment

Jake mentioned:

> But I sure enjoyed seeing CitiMortgage settle out of court with one of
> my guys (he walked away with a check for $10,000 & the $122,000
> mortgage is wiped off the books as if it never existed), a driver's
> license case against me (I don't have one) get dismissed, IRS problems
> end, we've got cases in both State & federal courts regarding IRS &
> State Dept. of Revenue issues & mortgage issues too. So the answer to
> your question is State & federal tax agencies & mortgage companies.

Good for you! It's a dirty job, but somebody has to do it!

I won the drivers license case three times, three different ways. It
was my educational process. My personal favorite topic revolves around
the money issues. "If you're not having fun, you're not doing it
right." - George Gordon

> Beat 'em @ their own game! I won't guarantee you can do it every time
> & you darn sure won't if you don't learn their procedural rules, but
> with enough "due diligence" it is possible. We've won far more cases
> than we've lost & my goal is to keep things like tax issues in
> administrative procedure so you never see the inside of a courtroom -
> that's worked over 90% of the time.

I agree that too many people fatally skip over the administrative level.

Who is "we" and where did you find like-minded people in your area?!

Speaking of 90% of the time, that is the percentage of convictions due
to admissions and confessions! Coincidence? YOU DECIDE!

> Use their own documents &
> procedures against them. But of course you have to know how .

Isn't that easy enough? You read the same stuff they read, right?
Maybe a little more! I have fun asking them to identify the laws they
will be obeying! So, you find they can follow their own stuff? Where I
am, NO WAY!!!

So best wishes to you in your endeavors!

Regards,

FF

Jake

Frog Farmer sez: I won the drivers license case three times, three different ways. It was my educational process. We ve had some interesting twists & turns

Message 17 of 26
, Sep 9, 2010

0 Attachment

Frog Farmer sez: "I won the drivers license case three times, three different ways. It was my educational process."
We've had some interesting twists & turns on that issue too, I lost one by not being prepared (my own fault), had other cases dismissed & I've got a Rule 5.1 motion in federal court now - that's a constitutional challenge to a state statute - what it boils down to is the requirement to have a valid SSN card to get a NC driver's license & this question, which I've never seen raised before - what authority does a state legislature have to make me (or anyone) join with a voluntary federal "benefits" program to get a state privilege? The answer is simple - no such authority exists. But no ruling has been made on my motion & while by Rule, the state attny. general can intervene within 60 days, that's long passed & not a peep from the state.
The Social Security system is voluntary & I even have 3 letters from S.S. Admin. officials that all start out the same way - "There is no law which requires anyone to get a social security number to live or work in the United States, or just for the purpose of having one." One goes on to say, "Of course, a person with no social security number would have no taxable income." HELLO !!! But back on point - how can the state legislature make me (or anyone) get a SSN to get a driver's license? They can't & I've only found one case on that issue, from the Tulare Co. superior court in California & it doesn't set a "legal precedent". Long story short, the court held that having or not having a SSN has NOTHING to do with whether or not you can "operate a motor vehicle" safely on the public highways & they ordered the state to renew the guy's license - he'd had one for years & had a clean driving record, but once they changed the law & started requiring a
SSN, since he wouldn't get one, they wouldn't renew his license. That case is People of the State of California v. Pyatt, Tulare County Superior Court, No. 65724 (2001).
> Who is "we" and where did you find like-minded people in your area?!
Long story behind that, but in brief, when I moved to this general area in 1991 & started looking things up @ the university law library just to satisfy my own curiosity about certain issues, I happened to meet some other folks who were doing the same thing. I never in a million years expected the study to "snowball" & turn into a vocation, but it did & there are a few folks who still study daily as I have ever since Jan., 1991. We've seen every "Patriot" argument there is, all the "Strawman", "Admiralty", "UCC", etc. ad nauseum stuff & while some are more interested in legal theory, all I care about is what actually works. And we know from experience that what worked last time may not this time - "they" will change the statutes / regulations when some tactic you developed works too well - believe me!
> Speaking of 90% of the time, that is the percentage of convictions due to admissions and confessions! Coincidence? YOU DECIDE!
No, it's certainly not coincidence, one of the biggest errors people make is making "affirmative defenses" where they take the burden of proof upon themselves & unfortunately, most people who contact me for help are already in a lot of trouble which they could have avoided if they knew more about who they were dealing with. One key is to flip that burden of proof over onto "them" & as you have said, doing things such as filing a motion in a court case gives them jurisdiction over you - you can't "move" a court to do anything unless the court has the jurisdiction to do it & by filing a motion, you just said it does.
>> Use their own documents & procedures against them. But of course you have to know how . . .
> Isn't that easy enough? You read the same stuff they read, right? Maybe a little more!
Absolutely - and a LOT more! Like look up every single case that's ever been decided on issues like the ones in your situation. Whether you like the court rulings or not is irrelevant, but you will get to see the arguments the other side will make & how a court is likely to rule on the issues. I study cases where people lost as much if not more than those where people won - so I can see what the people who lost did wrong & not make the same mistakes! Those who like to live in a fantasy world where administrative procedures work the way they're supposed to, where judges rule the way they should, etc. are virtually guaranteed to lose & especially if they don't learn the procedural rules & follow them very carefully - whether you like the rules or not is irrelevant - but if you don't follow them you will lose.
For example, I bought the Annotated Rules of North Carolina & you can get the same type books for any State - the Annotated version not only has the Rules, but if there's ever been a "legal precedent" case about the meaning or application of any given rule, such cases will be listed - a brief description of each case & the full citation so you can look it up if it applies to your situation. I also have the General Statutes, Annotated, which are arranged the same way. You can bet your opponent is using such books & if you don't, that's your fault.
What it boils down to is has the issue I'm raising been raised before? And/or has the argument I intend to make ever been made before? If so, how did the courts rule on those issues / arguments? Again, it matters not whether you agree with the rulings - but you most assuredly need to know what they have been or you're "toast" before you even start.
~ ~ ~

BOB GREGORY

*There are some good principles enunciated in the message by Jake, and I m not knocking him or others so much as I am interested in dealing with what this

Message 18 of 26
, Sep 9, 2010

0 Attachment

There are some good principles enunciated in the message by Jake, and I'm not knocking him or others so much as I am interested in dealing with what this group is supposed to be about.

Look at these quotes. You see others along the same lines from participants in the group.

"I won the drivers license case three times, three different ways. It was my educational process."

"I even have 3 letters from S.S. Admin. officials that all start out the
same way - "There is no law which requires anyone to get a social
security number to live or work in the United States, or just for the
purpose of having one." One goes on to say, "Of course, a person with
no social security number would have no taxable income.""

"Use their own documents & procedures against them. But of course you have to know how ... "

Since the group is supposed to consist of "tips and tricks," don't you think that we should, to the extent possible, avoid "hints, allusions and vague suggestions?"

If three different drivers license cases were won three different ways, wouldn't the "Tips and Tricks" principle be to actually tell people about the cases and the ways used to wind them?

If there are three letters with significant information about Social Security are in a person's possession, would it not be a good "tip or "trick" to make .pdf copies of them and include them as attachments or post them in the documents section?

If it is a good plan to use the government's own documents and procedures against them and you have to know how, would it not be a nice thing to discuss how to do it and provide some examples?

I'm not picking on just these particular comments but using them as examples of comments that appear fairly regularly in posts to the group. One could gain the impression that some participants have a certain proprietary feeling about the methods and approaches they have found that are successful and are willing to talk about their successes but not to share specifically how they were achieved.

If you have a useful document, share it. If you know one or a long list of on point court citations for a topic, quote them or provide links to them. If you found a good way to structure a pleading, redact private information and post it. If you know a good way to disqualify a judge, provide specific information. Only through an approach of sharing what works and eliminating the use of things that don't work can progress be made across a broad front.